Facts
In this case, the issue was the rejection of the appointment of gratuitous legal counsel for X. in proceedings for compulsory hospitalization. The cantonal Psychiatric Court Commission had rejected X.'s request for the appointment of gratuitous legal counsel on the grounds that indigence had not been proven.
X. subsequently appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that according to Art. 397f(2) of the Swiss Civil Code, the judge in the judicial review proceedings for compulsory hospitalization shall appoint legal counsel for the person concerned if necessary. A violation of this provision could be challenged by an appeal.
In the present case, however, Art. 397f(2) of the Swiss Civil Code was not disputed, as X. had already had a freely chosen legal counsel since the beginning of January 1987. The only issue was who should remunerate this legal counsel.
Federal civil law does not provide that the legal counsel appointed under Art. 397f(2) of the Swiss Civil Code must in every case act at the expense of the public. Such a solution would not be justified in cases where the person concerned has sufficient means to compensate the freely chosen legal…